My house looks like Christmas. I don't just do Christmas a little. I DO CHRISTMAS. So there's lights and trees and sparkles and stuff everywhere, including the occasional turkey or pumpkin which have not yet found their way back to the decoration room dungeon. That room would stress out even the most non-ADD mind. Shocking I open the door to it with anticipation and awe and wonder and excitement every time. Oh, and also I started teaching again at Redemption House (check it out Here) and traveled like a fool over Thanksgiving and double Oh!...end of year in the sales world is cray x infinity.
Lame over...Discussion Post 6 of 7 below. (It's the whole kit and caboodle [or kitten kaboodle depending on your love of grammar/animals]...settle in with some festive coffee or hot chocolate first before pouring over this one).
----------------------------------------------------------
After reading Keck, pp. 289–311, Blackwell, et al, ch. 16 (pp. 136–42), Simmons, “Priest—Sacrifice—Life as Worship,” 85–99
(essay available on Canvas), please respond to the following questions:(1) Spiritual Worship and the Body of Christ: (A) Discuss how Romans 12:1–2 is a transition from the argument in Romans 1–11 and what follows in the ethical exhortations of 12–15. How is the “spiritual worship” a culminating image that portrays the ‘embodiment’ of the powerful gospel message? How is the rest of the paraenesis in. 12:3–21 an outworking of this “be[ing] transformed by the renewal of your mind”? How do these acts of being a “living sacrifice” reverse the rebellious humanity portrayed in Romans 1–3? How does Paul use liturgical imagery to present his exhortation for the sanctification of the community?
(B) How does Paul in his paraenesis of ch. 12 here direct Christian believers to act towards ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ of the community? How does Paul appeal to (traditions of) the teaching of Jesus in order to exhort the believers to respond to difficult or challenging situations?
After reading Keck, pp. 311–34, Blackwell, et al, ch. 17 (pp. 143–50), and Neil Elliott, “Romans 13:1–7 In the Context of Roman Imperial Propaganda,” pp. 184–204
(essay available on Canvas), please respond to the following questions:(2) Church & State / Empire: (A) Begin by discussing how you have heard Romans 13:1–7 read in your church tradition. What kinds of appeals have been made to this passage? What kinds of practices and politics have been supported or challenged by use of this passage? What other biblical passages does this passage usually get associated with in your tradition, and what is the message that comes form this association?
(B) Next, briefly discuss your understanding of what Paul is saying in Romans 13:1–7. Then, discuss how this understanding relates to (i) Romans 12:1–21, to (ii) Romans 13:8–14. (What is Paul’s basic message here? How does this relate to the kinds of exhortations regarding ‘spiritual sacrifice’, ‘genuine love’, and ‘not avenging oneself’? What importance is it that Paul is writing his letter to the capital of the Empire? How might this relate to the issue of Judean-gentile relationship?)
(C) Next, discuss your understanding of the proper relationship between this passage and civil (dis)obedience. How does Elliott challenge or strengthen your reading of this passage? What does the “liturgical” (12:1–21) and “eschatological” (13:8–14) framework do to strengthen or mitigate the ‘political’ implications of 13:1–7?
-----------------------------------------------------------
1A. Paul writes about the radical
transformation that has occurred [in believer’s lives] “in view of God’s mercy”
(12:1).[1] Paul implies this by starting out the passage
with “therefore,” signaling that the exhortations are his response to God’s
action of mercy – which the whole argument in Romans 1-11 has been about. It’s as if the first 11 chapters were Paul’s
long intro of “here’s how NOT to live,” and not Chapter 12 is now calling the
readers to an approach towards life that is the absolute antithesis of that. This “new way” of living is founded on a new
way of thinking, a “renewing of your
mind” (12:2).[2] No longer are believers to act upon their
emotional impetuousness, but rather they are to act deliberately (i.e. with
emotional intelligence) according to this new way of thinking that encompasses
an entirely different way of treating others.
The inward change is to invoke even greater outward action-based
changes.
The “spiritual worship” is a culminating
image portraying the ‘embodiment’ of the gospel message in a parallel way to
that which is the ‘embodiment’ of the believing community. The spiritual worship of the entire community
is now to be a rational worship (12:1) which stems from renewed minds thus
leading to proper discernment of God’s will (12:2). The best part about this embodiment among the
believing community found in these passages is the sense of absolute
teamwork/camaraderie/oneness. There is a
unity. And as such, all who are part of the
collective body are to function independently with their own gifts, but are not
to think too arrogantly or highly of themselves because of their God-given
giftedness and instead think with self-control (12:3).
This renewal results in an outworking
outside oneself. The puffed up mind of
the Gentile believer was to be humbled by both the grace and the infinitely
wise mind of God in chapter 11. The Christian’s
transformation (12:2) is the result of the renewing
of the mind, while thinking is the
primary activity in verse 3. Chapter 12
in its entirety has to do with this new mindset of the Christian as a result of
God’s grace. The Christian doctrine
which Paul taught in Chapters 1-11 addressed the mind, but now Paul is calling
upon the Christian to exercise their
minds so they can conclude that the worship of sacrificial service is the only
proper response. This reverses the
incorrigible humanity which Chapters 1-3 portrayed by shifting from inner
selfish behaviors to [new mindsets] of external selfless behaviors. It is clear that the individual is no longer
the focus but rather the greater good of the whole community, expressing
corporately a right response to God’s grace and mercy.
According to Simmons,
Paul utilized priestly and sacrificial imagery to precipitate his law-free
gospel to the Gentiles. The phrase “the
sacrifice of the Gentiles” in 15:6 balances the accrued weight of Paul’s liturgical
language which picked back up in 12:1-2 as he instructs the hearers of his
message to “present themselves as living and holy sacrifices, holy and
acceptable to God.” Paul did this with
ONE end goal in mind – in fact, his entire ministry was hinging on this one
truth: “he served as a ministering priest of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles,
ministering as a priest for the gospel of God, so that the sacrifice of the
Gentiles might be well received, they being made holy by the Holy Spirit.”[3]
Paul used the classic
imagery of priest and sacrifice to argue for the full inclusion of Gentiles in
the church community as well as to substantiate/legitimize his calling among
them, for he was aware that if his sans-law gospel was to have success, the
Gentiles could no longer live like “sinners of the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:15); they
had to be holy, sanctified, and separated unto God.[4]
1B. The challenge is
given to those who are already Christians to present themselves as a ‘living
sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,’ which is the proper “worship” [of the
messianic age]. By having the Spirit’s
presence in their lives, the Spirit who is holy enables God’s people to live in
a way that is pleasing to Him, i.e. in their treatment of others – both inside
and outside the community [of believers].
An important dimension to this new pattern of life is explained in
12:2: “Do not be conformed to this
world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may
discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.” We know it is the Spirit’s work to bring
about renewal in Christians (cf. 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:18; Tit. 3:5). Renewal of the mind makes it possible for
‘insiders’ to go on discerning God’s will and preparing themselves for daily
obedience, not only despite countless pressures from ‘outsiders’ to do
otherwise, but also to act accordingly towards them (so that someday they can
no longer be on the outside if they renew their
minds and are transformed).
The exhortations that
follow in Romans 12 (through 15) reveal the dimensions of a life consecrated to
God, under the Holy Spirit’s direction.
This involves effective ministry to one another within the body of
Christ (12:3-13) and maintaining love and forgiveness towards those outside the
Christian community (12:14-21).
In Romans 12-14 there
are, by my count, eight references which echo Jesus’ teachings that Paul is drawing
on in an effort to incite the believers to respond appropriately in trying
situations. Most parallels between
Jesus’ teaching and Paul’s teaching deal with ethics. For example, Romans 12:14 teaches, “bless
those who persecute you” (cf. Matt. 5:44), Romans 12:17 states, “do not repay
anyone evil for evil” (cf. Matt. 5:39) and in Romans 12:21 it is written, “overcome
evil with good” (cf. Matt. 5:39-42).
Beyond what is stated, I believe Paul appeals to the traditions of the
teaching of Jesus simply in the way he conducts his ministry. It is how Jesus operated; their styles are
similar. Jesus had an all-inclusive
outreach to the fringe of society (i.e. prostitutes/tax collectors) which is
seemingly extended in Paul’s Gentile mission.
Paul’s central theme(s) is closely related to the teachings of Jesus. Paul’s Christology, how he views the Kingdom
of God, the death of Jesus, the mission of the church, and his eschatology all
have close compatibility with the Jesus of the Gospels.
2a. I have always
been taught within my church tradition that Romans 13:1-7 was our guide for how
to treat those individuals in positions of “authority,” with authority being
synonymous with a hierarchal structure.
So from police officers, to teachers, to mayors, to governors, to the
President of the United States - we are to submit, defer, and not question or
speak ill of them, because in so doing, we are “sinning” against God since He
put them in those positions. The only
time we were given the proverbial green light to politely question a person of
authority is if they instructed us to do something in direct contrast to God’s
teachings; yet oddly, that always seemed secondary to making sure we listened
and respected earthly authority. I never
fully understood (or accepted) this teaching, probably because I always felt
like there were a ton of “fine print” situations that would challenge the usage
of this passage. For example, what
happens when people claim legitimate governmental authority but are not? What happens when a Christian is living in a
country where a military coup is going on and determination of which government
is in power is next to impossible? What
about Hitler? For that matter, what
about Obama? (Ok, ok, I know…politics
and religion, but we’re already hitting .500 here…). I continue to struggle with the “God put them
there” summation that always preceded this entire teaching within my church
upbringing.
Other biblical passages that usually were
lumped in with Romans 13:1-7 were of course the obligatory “wives submit to
your husbands” (Eph. 5:22-33) and those dealing with slaves submitting to their
masters (Col. 3:22; 1 Peter 2:18). I was
usually already rolling my eyes when the priest began to go to these (in his
mind) corollary passages, as it seemed as if the message that was being
conveyed from the association is that God put husbands in charge of their wives
(and even if they were saying something absurd, wives had to listen or else they would be “sinning”) which intimated
almost an arranged marriage situation. The
way in which it was portrayed and associated slapped the notion of a loving,
submissive spirit in the face every time in favor of condemning the
non-authoritative person for sinning.
2b. I understand Paul to be giving advice here,
to a particular community of faith in a particular historical context. My take on his concern is that it was
primarily pastoral. I think Paul was
teaching and advising the Jewish Christians to submit to the governing
authorities. He was looking out for
their best interests, as if they followed his instruction, perhaps it would
keep them from withholding taxes or from becoming involved in any anti-Roman
protests.
The thesis of Paul’s argument
here is in verse 1a, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities.” He
then supports that argument by appealing to various reasons why the Roman
Christians are to submit to the authorities. First, no authority exists except from God,
and all authorities that exist have been instituted by God (13:1). Second, rulers are not an intimidation towards
good conduct but rather towards bad (13:3). Third, the authority/ruler is God’s servant in
three ways: for the good of the Romans, to initiate wrath on the wrongdoer, and
by being busy with “this very thing,” - that is, collecting taxes (13:4,6). Paul infuses his reasons with examples and
consequences, i.e. 13:2 where he notes the results of resisting authority. He also makes a noticeable shift from making
statements of fact to a command, i.e. “pay to all what is due them” thus
connecting submission to the authorities with a duty to pay taxes and offer
revenue.
The reasons (facts) for
submission to the governing authorities are fundamental to Paul’s command that
the Roman Christians fulfill their civic obligations. Paul is essentially arguing that because the
authorities were instituted by God, and continue to serve both God and the
Christian, the Roman believers must submit to their rule. He is telling the Roman believers that the
rulers of Rome are to be respected and obeyed for reasons of conscience and
their possible wrath (13:5).
Paul argues for an attitude of love and
nonresistance in the face of suffering in Chapter 12 (1-21), hence it is not
inconceivable that he would discuss the Roman community’s relationship to the
governing authorities later on in Chapter 13 (I call paying taxes “suffering”!)
Paul may have decided at this point in
the letter (13:1) to address a problem the Romans were experiencing and if so,
the relation becomes clearer. I think it
needs to be understood within the context: as a letter written to a group(s) of
people who are committed to a new messiah and living in the capital of the
Empire.
Romans 13:1-7 is part of Paul’s overall ethical
advice that the hearers and readers encounter in chapters 12-15. Paul is making it clear that he intends his
previous theological arguments to call forth a response of gratitude and
commitment which will reorient the life of the community.[5] If gratitude, responsiveness, and commitment
are Paul’s hope for the Roman believers, it gets a little dicey and potentially
confusing as to how we are to understand the sudden shift in subject matter
that occurs between 12:21 and 13:1 (and continues for the next six
verses). However, I don’t believe Paul
was attempting to write out a manifesto for Church-State relations for the next
two or three millennia; rather, I believe his concern to be pastoral and local.
He was (pastorally concerned and) advising
against anti-Roman and Palestinian nationalist conceptions among the Jewish
Christians in Rome. They were to submit
to the governing authority (the Roman Empire) because that authority was
derived from God. I can’t even imagine
how well that must have gone over, given what we deal with concerning
“submission to our government’s decisions” today…
Lastly, in 13:11-12,
Paul’s end-time consciousness is apparent. Perhaps part of his argument for acquiescence
to the governing authorities was based on his consciousness of the end of the
age nearness. The hope that the world
and the Empire itself was passing away and thus being rendered inoperative,
might have given a Jewish Christian in Rome a sign of humanity’s ultimate
liberation from all authorities,
oppressive or otherwise. The very rulers
that had been instituted by God, including even the Empire itself, were to be
brought under the final rule of Christ (13:12).
I use this argument frequently when I have to remind myself how to deal
with difficult people or with topics that pretty much just don’t matter: by remembering
that we all have to answer to the same God someday and when that day comes, none
of “this” will matter (like it “matters” now, in the present day).
2c. The Elliott article strengthened my
longstanding position and understanding of this passage, at least insofar as
the whole “God puts people in the ‘right’ positions” is concerned. Elliott states that there is one significant
obstacle with reading 13:1-7 as a consistent and coherent response to a
particular Roman situation happening at
that time – “the passage itself does not express an unequivocally positive
attitude toward the ‘governing authorities.’”[6] Elliott points out that certainly not everyone in authority could have followed
God, and further, that the passage is almost self-contradictory. “On the one hand, we read absurdly positive
comments about the purpose and function of the authorities. They are ‘instituted by God’ (13:1); they
‘approve or reward those who do good’ (13:3); they are ‘God’s ministers for
good’ (13:4); and ‘God’s servants’ (13:6).”
And yet, while those assertions were traditional in Hellenistic Jewish
propaganda, he goes on to say that, “what is missing in Romans 13:1-7 is the
characteristic criticism of those foreign powers in the present evil age.”[7] To be subordinate in Judaism inferred that
there was almost always implicit and explicit judgments of those foreign
governments – even if God was somehow using their evil for His good.
Blackwell hits the
nail on the head when he says that, for Paul, there is more to life than
politics. That statement essentially
sums up (for me) both the liturgical and eschatological frameworks and their respective
relation to the political implications of 13:1-7. The (few) verses on the state are rooted in
Paul’s more expansive vision for Christian ethics
in Chapters 12-15 which is to essentially, “do good” (12:21; 13:3-4) while
focusing on their “continued debt to love one another (13:8)” – present
company of the state, of rulers, of non-believers notwithstanding.
[1]
Blackwell, Ben C., Goodrich, John K., Maston, Jason. Reading Romans in Context, Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Page
139. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015.
[2]
Blackwell, Ben C., Goodrich, John K., Maston, Jason. Reading Romans in Context, Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Page
139. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015.
[3]
Simmons, William A. Priest – Sacrifice – Life as Worship:
A Pauline Matrix for Understanding Romans. Page 86.
Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan-Mar 2015.
[4]
Simmons, William A. Priest – Sacrifice – Life as Worship:
A Pauline Matrix for Understanding Romans. Page 86.
Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan-Mar 2015.
[5] Culpepper, Alan R., “God’s Righteousness
in the Life of His People: Romans 12-15,” Review and Expositor
73 (4, 1974), 451.
[6]
Elliott, Neil. “Romans 13:1-7: In
Context of Imperial Propaganda.” Paul
and Empire. Page 196. Harrisburg:
Trinity Press International, 1997.
[7]
Elliott, Neil. “Romans 13:1-7: In
Context of Imperial Propaganda.” Paul
and Empire. Page 196. Harrisburg:
Trinity Press International, 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment